The Phala Phala impeachment process is on hold after President Cyril Ramaphosa won a high court interdict. (Photo: Gallo Images / Sharon Seretlo) The Western Cape Division of the High Court has granted President Cyril Ramaphosa an interdict to stay Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment committee from proceeding with its public impeachment inquiry in the Phala Phala saga.
“This court has carefully considered the weighty arguments advanced by the parties in the limited time available, given the urgency of the matter,” Judge Andre le Grange said when reading the judgment on Friday morning, 24 July 2026.
“There are three judgments. The first judgment concludes, for reasons set out therein, that the president has not made out a case for an interim interdict. It proposes that the application be dismissed.
“The second judgment concludes that the president has made out a case for an interim interdict, for the reasons set out in that judgment. It proposes that an interdict of limited duration be granted.
“The third judgment concurs with the second judgment. The second judgment is the majority judgement. In the result, the following order is made… Pending the determination by this court of the applicant’s review… The first and second respondents are interdicted from proceeding with a public impeachment proceeding,” Le Grange said.
Ramophosa had sought to stay a public impeachment inquiry – which will probe his conduct in the Phala Phala affair – pending a legal review of the report of the Section 89 panel led by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo.
That panel found that Ramaphosa had a case to answer over the theft of $580,000 in cash hidden in his sofa at his Phala Phala game farm.
In May, the Constitutional Court cleared the path for impeachment proceedings to begin when it ordered Parliament to refer the panel report to an impeachment committee. Ramaphosa subsequently launched a review of the report, which is set to be heard in early September.
The African Transformation Movement (ATM), Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK) and United African Transformation (UAT) parties opposed his application for an urgent interdict. Parliament’s impeachment committee, chaired by Rise Mzansi’s Makashule Gana, also opposed the interdict on legal grounds.
The matter was heard in the high court over two days last week.
Advocate Wim Trengove, representing Ramaphosa, argued that subjecting the president to a public impeachment inquiry on the back of a flawed report would be a “humiliation” from which he could not easily recover. He said that if the Section 89 report was found invalid on review, its invalidity would cause Ramaphosa “significant” reputational harm if the hearing went ahead.
The ATM, EFF, MK and UAT, meanwhile, argued that the court would be “cutting into the lane of Parliament” if it were to grant the president an urgent interdict.
They further argued that Ramaphosa had failed to make a case for irreparable harm, and that harm would instead be inflicted on the public should an impeachment inquiry be stalled and accountability delayed.
Earlier this week, Parliament’s impeachment committee kicked for touch decisions on how it would run its proceedings, in particular its terms of reference, Daily Maverick’s Marianne Merten reported.
Responding to the ruling on Friday morning, Gana said he noted the Western Cape Division of the High Court’s decision to interdict the impeachment proceedings.
“We now await the full judgment which we will study and be able to give further updates in terms of the work that the committee still has to do, because what I heard, it’s only the public hearings that have been interdicted,” he added.
In a statement, the Presidency said Ramaphosa noted the ruling of the high court, adding that he “reaffirms his respect of judicial independence and separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.
“The president will continue to cooperate with and abide by processes of accountability,” it said. DM
This is a developing story and will be updated.